Live data from Hacker News

Why cyclists should be able to roll through stop signs, ride through red lights

vox.com

31–40 of 80 posts

Re: Why cyclists should be able to roll through stop signs, ride through red lights

#31
I don't see how it's safe to allow this for bikes, but it's not safe for cars? Why not just allowing everyone to "slow down and look for traffic" and then decide if it's safe to go through or not? That's basically what you do when there's no traffic lights and if people really slow down and look there will be rarely any problems with that. That's how roundabouts function, and they are generally very safe.

Re: Why cyclists should be able to roll through stop signs, ride through red lights

#32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Sorry, I should have "straddle" rather than "dismount". ) > For an experienced, physically fit cyclist, riding in good conditions? Perhaps. But isn't this the case with all traffic laws? For example, the law may permit drivers to go 55 mph on a certain road, but in a driving rain that speed could be dangerously fast; it's incumbent on drivers and riders to adapt to the conditions around them and their abilities. Ida…

But isn't this the case with all traffic laws? For example, the law may permit drivers to go 55 mph on a certain road, but in a driving rain that speed could be dangerously fast Yes, certainly. My point was more that the upper bound of what the law allows tends to be less than what the most skilled and experienced road users could safely do, because most road users aren't that skilled and experienced. For example, wh…

> I appreciate your point, I just think it's rather like saying a speed limit isn't a target. While it's true and the spirit in which the rules are intended, the reality is that most drivers will assume driving the limit is reasonable unless and until it very obviously is not.

I disagree with this counterpoint. In "Idaho Stops" the law is extremely clear - a red light is treated as a full stop, and a stop sign is treated as a yield. As yield and stop are both well understood on American roads this law would be clear to cyclist and driver alike.

Following your line of reasoning, yield signs should be replaced with stop signs as the harm caused by drivers blowing through them outweighs the benefits. Do you agree with this?

Re: Why cyclists should be able to roll through stop signs, ride through red lights

#33

One thing I find frustrating about driving in the US is that stop signs are everywhere! Even on a fully open junction in a quiet suburb where you can see a good few hundred feet down the road, you still have to stop. I know it's the law, but why? In the UK you don't have to stop at every junction, if the junction is open (i.e. you can see traffic clearly) and it's clear you can go on through without stopping. If the…

You have to come to a complete stop at the red light before you can turn right

Re: Why cyclists should be able to roll through stop signs, ride through red lights

#34
Cyclist commuter here. Red lights should be red lights to everybody.

However, Idaho stops are the way future. It's just doesn't make sense to apply the same "come to a complete stop" standard to cyclists. They're traveling at a much lower speed and have much less ability to accelerate. The extra time it takes to come to a complete stop (which means finding your balance at a stand still), and then remounting the bike accelerating through the intersection is not worth it, and makes the commute that much more of a slog.

I think characterizing the Idaho stop as "rolling through the intersection" might be a little bit misleading, since it conveys a really lax attitude. Idaho stops are generally quite safe.

Edit: In most cases, Idaho stops have very similar cadence to a car coming to a full stop. You slow down up to the line, look all around you, determine the right of way, and if you have it, you start peddling back up to cruising speed. The fact you don't come to a complete stop is pretty much a technicality because the timing is almost the same.

If you come to a complete stop, the timing is all off, and there's much more likely to be hesitation and ambiguity. Starting from a stop takes a lot more time, is much more likely to lead to false-starts, and puts you in a very vulnerable position.

Re: Why cyclists should be able to roll through stop signs, ride through red lights

#35
post #7

Although the article alluded to studies that show this approach is safer it didn't bother to cite any. Here's one based on results when the law passed in Iowa: http://docplayer.net/1126976-Meggs-jason-n-stops-harm-bikes-... Slowing down as you approach the stop sign, scanning the full 360 degrees around the intersection (which, unlike cars, cyclists are able to do easily and quickly), being prepared to stop if necess…

When I drive (which is a lot less than I bike), I drive a stick, and at least at reds, I put the car in neutral and engage the parking brake so I can rest my feet, which (except for the loss of momentum) is comparable to the trouble incurred in dismounting for a bike. In general, driving or biking, I think we should stop trying to decrease effort, and increase it instead. It's good for you. As a cyclist you get stron…

Agreed. As a stick driver, I spend more energy stopping and starting at a stop sign than a bike rider does, no exaggeration.

Re: Why cyclists should be able to roll through stop signs, ride through red lights

#36

As a cyclist of 40 years who's (hopefully) learned from their mistakes, I strongly disagree. Not only is it unsafe, pisses-off drivers and pedestrians, gives cyclists a bad name, but it's also completely unnecessary because you'll easily catch-up with cyclists who shot the lights at the next intersection anyway without even trying. That's what cyclists who shoot lights don't get is that it's actually not any faster i…

I am surprised to hear you assert that there is no time saving to be had in running red lights. In my opinion it's just too bad for annoyed drivers. They are welcome to join us. What angry drivers usually don't get is that the equation is much different for cyclists. Our capacity to cause harm is a tiny fraction of that of a car. Also, we can't get tickets that raise our car insurance premium. Wheeeee!!!

"Our capacity to cause harm is a tiny fraction of that of a car."

By rolling lights/stops you're making it harder for cars to notice and avoid you, making it more dangerous for yourself. I hope you don't find out that truth, though.

Re: Why cyclists should be able to roll through stop signs, ride through red lights

#37

Always used to see a guy cycling on my commute home. He'd roll through every stop sign and most traffic signals. (He explained one day that it "saved energy" for him to keep going...even though he cycled as "exercise...") I don't see him anymore. One day last year, he rolled through a red light in Koreatown, right into a truck which had the right of way. He was thrown from his bike about 20 feet and died from blunt f…

It is dangerous. However, when you consider the economic, environmental, and health advantages it looks better. See http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/06/13/bicycling-the-safe....

I feel notably worse inside a week when I stop cycling.

You know what the worst part of cycling is? The endless noise and pollution from cars.

Cars are a scourge. It is no wonder why drivers are so angry all the time. Who in their right mind wants to spend their time utterly immobilized, doing nothing but trying to avoid hitting other cars?

Cycling is always a bit of an adventure, always exhilarating.

Re: Why cyclists should be able to roll through stop signs, ride through red lights

#38
I'm curious about what Germans think of this, since people look a pedestrian askance if you don't wait for the light.

As an occasional cyclist I'm of two minds. On the one hand, having too many stop signs along a roadway gets annoying so mentally one wants to simply slow down and look and if no cars have the right of way at the time, go through. The danger is that this behavior gets modified to a default of riding through and only slowing down if a motorist doesn't give you right of way (slow down or wave on) and assuming that as a cyclist I have the primary right of way (weaving through pedestrians and cars) in other words wishing people and cars did not have to share (yes, it's only a mindset, but one easy to allow to set in).

Also, since cycling is healthy, you get even more exercise by stopping and starting constantly so from a health perspective it's better as it improves your workout and keeps you alive by preventing unnecessay collisions.

Re: Why cyclists should be able to roll through stop signs, ride through red lights

#39

As a cyclist of 40 years who's (hopefully) learned from their mistakes, I strongly disagree. Not only is it unsafe, pisses-off drivers and pedestrians, gives cyclists a bad name, but it's also completely unnecessary because you'll easily catch-up with cyclists who shot the lights at the next intersection anyway without even trying. That's what cyclists who shoot lights don't get is that it's actually not any faster i…

I think the key difference is between stop lights and stop signs. The latter is a more attentive experience and adaptable to the Idaho stop. Stop lights are a bigger challenge. It's been my experience the size & traffic activity of the lighted intersection determines the safety level and flexibility.

Re: Why cyclists should be able to roll through stop signs, ride through red lights

#40

One thing I find frustrating about driving in the US is that stop signs are everywhere! Even on a fully open junction in a quiet suburb where you can see a good few hundred feet down the road, you still have to stop. I know it's the law, but why? In the UK you don't have to stop at every junction, if the junction is open (i.e. you can see traffic clearly) and it's clear you can go on through without stopping. If the…

You have to come to a complete stop at the red light before you can turn right

Ok, that seems sensible if it's on a red. Basically treat it like a closed junction
Post reply on HN